Rational, fact-based. This is about having a fact-based dialogue based on reasoning rather than bias and heat. In a spirit of learning from each other, but never making the other wrong for different beliefs nor viewpoint. Where possible, I'll use your input to add to or correct the information on the site. If there is something you see as upsetting or with which you strongly disagree, link into the related website and read the piece written about that (at the top).

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Swing voters - Read this to think deeper

Please pass
this on to those who are independent or undecided voters in the swing states
and to people who will pass it on to people in the swing states.

__________________

Barack
Obama, who I had voted for in the dearth of alternatives and in the hope for
change, is a good, committed fellow but he has the misunderstandings typical to
an idealist and a person with no grounding in the real world of economics and
what actually works and doesn’t work (which is what one learns from actual
experience where decisions and strategies must work in actual results).

Yes, we do
need to make sure we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves.
Yes, we do need to do those functions that can only be done from a centralized
system to benefit all Americans. And that includes especially assuring that
Americans are educated and productive, able to cover themselves and contribute
to the overall good.

But there
is an argument of how much further should we go along the continuum of
practicality versus idealism.

The
ultimate “further” is the ever appealing Socialism. (We are not there, but the
question is how far to go.)

“We can do
it together. We can provide for all. We can assure equality and that the rich
and powerful do not take over.”

The
argument in Socialism is fired up by choosing an enemy, or bad guy. The same
goes for Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals (which Obama taught in Chicago).

The
argument is further fired up by the appealing concept of the government
providing for all.

The danger
lies here in “entitlement” or classic codependency where people are enabled to
depend on rescue and security from another – and this results in less ambition
and less self-esteem for the individual but it results in many fewer people
contributing to the productivity and welfare of the nation.

The
indicator of this that is concrete is the number of people depending on the
government (exclusive of those who have paid into a system). (About 50% pay no
federal income taxes. Is that reasonable?)

That
indicator can creep up without our noticing it.

How much is
too much?

Of course,
we can’t get all capable people who are unproductive to be productive, but we
should be able to limit those who aren’t to, say, 10% (this is in addition to
those who are in fact not capable). Surely it would make sense for us to demand
that they do whatever they can to carry their own load - and not reward them
with any money beyond the slightest subsistence that is demanded by the
humanitarianism of not letting anyone starve. But those people must be called
on to be responsible – and to contribute– which will help us have more money
for the good causes.

Ultimately,
Socialism calls for “From each according to his ability, to each according to
his need.” (Wikipedia)

And “we will take care of you” is the ultimate way to get
people “fired up” – many people get excited by it.

But it falls short in that it fails to meet the final
tests:

1. There is no clear path on how this is to be
actually provided. We must not be misled into believing that the rich can
provide it (from each according to his ability), because, though appealing,
there is not enough wealth for the rich to be able to do that. If you
increased taxes on them by 10%, exclusive of the economic effect on growth,
only 1/5 of the current deficit would be paid for. Anyone using the
argument that the rich can cover you is possibly doing the pied piper approach
– for there is no substance to the argument, there is no way to make it work.

All the hope in the world will not make it work, for
there is no proven way to make it work.

And note that Socialism has always failed.

And before it ultimately fails, the leaders have to start
imposing their own authoritarianismto force people to comply, always.

The beginning is always with the idea of “doing the
right thing” by providing for the people. They use their form of “executive
orders” (leader orders) to implement “the right thing”, which, incidentally, does
look like the right thing and it may be the right thing, but the consequences
are not identified clearly(or we would seek a different balance, given that
there are tradeoffs – and we must realize that the good fairy will not show
up to make it all work).

The leaders fail to stick to the laws and go around them
without working it out with the legislature, which is the entity to make the
laws – after all, the leaders’ judgment is “superior”to theirs.

Yes, it appears innocuous at first.

Who cares if the budgets submitted to Congress are voted
down 100% - by both parties!

Who cares that the immigration laws (which the leaders
have determined are not right) are not enforced – and surely it is wonderful to
not deport those who have never known another nation. I agree with the latter
idea, but shouldn’t the lawmakers agree and be the ones who formulate the laws?

Who cares that the leaders impose regulations and
restrictions that support their constituencies even though they are doing it by
essentially creating their own laws or not waiting for them to be created by
lawful means? No big deal, right?

No big deal, just lots of little changes – which
gradually accumulate and catch you before you realize it.

And isn’t it wonderful that we impose these requirements
on the evil profitmaking health insurance companies, where they are to provide
“for free” certain benefits to all (yes, there appears to be a “good fairy”
here). Free is good, and it is appealing, but do we have the right to
dictate (as in orders from a dictator)? And without agreement in law?

Where are the limits? And aren’t there signs of going
around the law and the rules? How far should we allow that to go? It seems
harmless, but we should be aware of it.

2. We are limited by what is real and practical and we
should address that,, yes?

And if there are financial concerns shouldn’t we address
those with a concrete plan? Or should we just ignore it and rely on hope –hope
that it will solve itself in the long run – which of course does not work in
the real world!

If we have promises of more and more and more, but we
fail to set up a means of fulfilling current promises (currently behind by
$100 trillion, per the Trustees reports!), aren’t we in for problems in the
future?

But, no, it is easy to ignore that and easier to fire up
the people with more promises, briefly alluding to “I’ll take care of that and
yes it is serious but we’ll handle it” and “don’t vote for those who are mean
and force us to face tradeoffs” (said more convincingly than that, of course).

I don’t like the idea that the “other” party has
alternate values to my own, though I cannot prove mine are right, as they are
only opinions. I respect theirs. But as I look at it, 72% of the people in the
US approve of 1st trimester abortions, so there will be no
difference there regardless of who I vote for. And I know that it is not true
that the other party will let people starve in the streets, nor do I think that
they could impose that even if they wanted to, as the people would have a
say-so in that and no one would let it happen. And gay rights will continue to
improve.

I see no loss of basicsocial benefits, but I do
see a greater ability to be effective plus a willingness to address the tough
issues – not just the national debt but the $100 trillion of unfunded
liabilities in Social Security and Medicare (still unaddressed by Obama after 3
½ years; politically wise, but a sell-out on the American people).

One path, in my analysis, has no hope of succeeding,
with a leader who has no practical capabilityand experience,
though noble intent. The other will do no damage, because they can’t go beyond
the will of the people, but it will at least seek to do what is right and
workable and practical – with at least good solid potential.

There seems to be no contest here.

One path is virtually guaranteed not to work – there is
no good fairy that will rescue us.

The other path is systematic, disciplined, with a capable
proven leader and ‘rescuer’ of businesses, Olympics, and a state. (And in his
famous op-ed that was titled by the New York Times and was misleading, he
actually proposed to save Detroit by a managed bankruptcy to make each company
safely viable and then, and only then, to have government guarantee the
necessary loans, so that necessary capital could be obtained. Read the op-ed;
don’t rely on the false representations made about this. Detroit.)

And if the people fail to realize that we must follow a
path that works, in this world of imperfection and real limits, instead of one
that literally has no hope except for the good fairy showing up and rescuing it
all – if they fail to realize it, we will suffer greatly as a nation – and drop
even further behind in being able to finance all that is good and beneficial in
the world.